Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In a search assessment, additions for unaccounted advances and cash receipts were upheld on the basis of composite appellate orders and concurrent findings of fact drawn from seized material. The High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had considered the entire record across the relevant years, and the Tribunal's lack of separate elaborate reasoning for one year did not, by itself, justify remand. Because the dispute turned on appreciation of evidence and factual conclusions, no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A, and the appeal was dismissed.
In a search assessment, additions for unaccounted advances and cash receipts were upheld on the basis of composite appellate orders and concurrent findings of fact drawn from seized material. The High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had considered the entire record across the relevant years, and the Tribunal's lack of separate elaborate reasoning for one year did not, by itself, justify remand. Because the dispute turned on appreciation of evidence and factual conclusions, no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.